Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Will/Should The US Be Taken Seriously?

This question is addressed in Caroline Glick's latest Jerusalem Post article, Our World: Can America be trusted? What is our credibility around the world in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq -- but do keep the history of our withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993 firmly in mind...

There are two diametrically opposed views of American policy. One (taken by Druse leader Walid Jumblatt who wants to end Syrian occupation in Lebanon) is that we're going to help out people who want democracy; the other (a position taken by Syria and Iran) is that you can play chicken with us because it's a good bet that we'll be the first to back down. Syria and Iran see our staying power in Iraq as an aberration. They see our support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- despite the fact that both are tyrannies that foster hatred and terror against the US and its allies through various forms. But one thing in Glick's article especially caught my eye:

"Iran and Syria see Washington backing the Palestinian Authority's new president Mahmoud Abbas in spite of the fact that Abbas has said consistently that he will not raise a finger against Palestinian terrorists. They see Washington embracing Abbas and showering him with US taxpayer dollars at the same time as Abbas signs execution orders for Palestinians who have helped Israel combat terrorism and declares his intention to "reform" the PA security services by enlisting Hamas and Fatah terrorists in their ranks."

How can we be taken seriously when we do things like this? I know I wonder; why shouldn't other countries do the same? That's a quandary Bush is trying to deal with on this European tour. If he can get the Europeans and the Russians on board to help use diplomacy against Syria and Iran -- then the first option view will gain validity. If he can't convince them, Bush will face a choice:

"He can prefer good relations with Paris, Berlin and Moscow to his own stated policy objectives. If this is the outcome – and it will be made clear if Bush in any way is perceived as even slightly backing away from his stated doctrine of fighting terror and oppression as a means of winning the war – the Syria and Iran leaders can breathe easy as their democratic opponents are forced to relent or go underground."

With that in mind, if Bush doesn't have their support, Glick sees him as having one tool of coercion left -- lethal force.

Add to that, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter dropped a bombshell that the US plans to bomb Iran in June of 2005. Of course, we have no idea if his assertion has any basis in reality but you can bet if things don't go well for Bush in getting our allies on board, this possibility is going to appear closer to becoming a reality. Or will the US simply leave the situation for Israel to clean up for the world again?


At 9:56 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

This article does present the dilema relatively clearly.

"Add to that, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter dropped a bombshell that the US plans to bomb Iran in June of 2005. "

This guy has turned out to be such an untrustworthy disgruntled traitor. If it is true or not I have know idea. But, why would he announce this unless he is just interested on more publicity. Isn't he also the guy who was into child pornography or something?

At 10:17 AM, Blogger Esther said...

I'm with you on Ritter, Gindy. What a waste of space. And he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet but the charges were dropped and the records sealed.

At 1:16 PM, Blogger Gindy said...

And supposedly he received money in a round about way from Saddam for a movie defending Saddam.

At 1:28 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Oh RIGHT! I think I remember something about that. He is a true waste of space.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home